High Battery Cost Curbs Electric Cars

[Sam]

ERD50 and samclem,

You guys are right, the Volt is a nice product for its intended purpose: Short, everyday commutes. I was hasty in condemning it because its purpose does not fit my need. 40-50 miles per charge is simply way too short for me.

That said, I'm not at all impressed with its technology. There is no new technology added when compared to the current Prius. And at 35mpg (very low compared to the Prius') after the initial 40-50 miles, I think it's downright pathetic. I can buy a $2,000, 20 years old Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla that would achieve that same kind of gas mileage.

 

[ERD50]

You know, there is a lot of high quality engineering expertise on this board. Maybe some of you guys should get busy on global warming, or resource depletion, or nuclear plant safety or somesuch.

It is even possible I suppose that some of your good ideas might be some consideration.

Ha

Heck, some of us were paid to do those sorts of things. Some/most of us are retired now. This is just for the "fun of it".

But more seriously, this does touch on global warming (or at least CO2 emissions), resource depletion, and maybe nuclear plants (since they are a way to generate the electricity for EVs). If these posts influence anyone at all that "zero emissions" and EVs are silly talk, at least some good has come from it. But it's mostly mental exercise.

That said, I'm not at all impressed with its technology. There is no new technology added when compared to the current Prius. And at 35mpg (very low compared to the Prius') after the initial 40-50 miles, I think it's downright pathetic. I can buy a $2,000, 20 years old Honda Civic or Toyota Corolla that would achieve that same kind of gas mileage.

No the technology is not new at all. There were serial and parallel hybrids and EVs in the first decades of the 1900's.

Hybrid electric vehicle - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But I'm still impressed with how the GM engineers and marketers have packaged it, and I'm rarely impressed by such things. But I totally agree that is isn't any sort of present solution to any present day problem. That was the point of my OP. Heck, even the Prius doesn't make economic sense for most people, and it uses less of that expensive battery capacity than the Volt.

If this sort of technology was viable, we'd see it in Europe (high gas prices, generally shorter drives) and in stop and go fleets here in the US. Stop and go is where hybrids (of all stripes) excel, yet my mail truck and UPS and Fed Ex and taxis and buses in Chicago have not used them in significant numbers. Their miles and utilization rates would provide paybacks far in excess of the average residential driver. Yet, the govt wants me to chip in $7,500 to pay for batteries that will sit unused 23 hours a day. Silly.

BTW, I read half of the article on the Volt/Leaf in Motor Trend in a waiting room today - our library doesn't have its copy yet, so I will check later.

-ERD50

 

[kumquat]

I doubt a purely EV will ever be practical here in the Frozen North. I'll let you engineers figure out how much battery power is required to make the interior warm enough to sit in, much less keep the windows clear, at -40C (or -40F if you don't understand metric). What would the warm range be?

 

[Hobo]

I doubt a purely EV will ever be practical here in the Frozen North. I'll let you engineers figure out how much battery power is required to make the interior warm enough to sit in, much less keep the windows clear, at -40C (or -40F if you don't understand metric). What would the warm range be?

I can guarantee you no (sober) engineer ever came up with the idea of a purely battery powered EV. These ideas come out of the minds of tree-hunging, green environmentalists. The idea gets popular because other untrained, non-scientific type people thinks it makes sense.

Someday someone may come up with a power source (which performs the same function of a battery) that uses a chemical reaction to produce vast more quantities of energy than the batteries available today. However, it is unlikely that a conventional battery, using chemical reaction will ever be found. More likely an alternative fuel source, such as flow through lithium ions or something more exotic, may power a device that generates electricity (similar to a fuel cell).

Our last great hope was cold fusion which turned out to be a hoax. As of today, finding a stand alone device that can produce enough energy to power of an EV is a twinkle in the eye of some dreamer's imagination.

Not to loose all hope, however. There are many types of hybrid vehicles using various power sources and fuels that could be found in the future. Our technology will evolve over time. It may even become less expensive than using a petroleum based energy source. But don't hold your breath

 

[ls99]

My admittedly unscientific evaluation:

Chevy Volt = Edsel

 

[HFWR]

I can guarantee you no (sober) engineer ever came up with the idea of a purely battery powered EV. These ideas come out of the minds of tree-hunging, green environmentalists. The idea gets popular because other untrained, non-scientific type people thinks it makes sense.

Someday someone may come up with a power source (which performs the same function of a battery) that uses a chemical reaction to produce vast more quantities of energy than the batteries available today. However, it is unlikely that a conventional battery, using chemical reaction will ever be found. More likely an alternative fuel source, such as flow through lithium ions or something more exotic, may power a device that generates electricity (similar to a fuel cell).

Our last great hope was cold fusion which turned out to be a hoax. As of today, finding a stand alone device that can produce enough energy to power of an EV is a twinkle in the eye of some dreamer's imagination.

Not to loose all hope, however. There are many types of hybrid vehicles using various power sources and fuels that could be found in the future. Our technology will evolve over time. It may even become less expensive than using a petroleum based energy source. But don't hold your breath

Well, I'm opposed to lawyer science, as I call it, but let's consider...

IF, and that's a big IF, we have an EV that costs quite a bit less than $40k, and IF we are talking about an urban area with lots of congestion and pollution, and IF we can generate electricity relatively cleanly utitlizing non-peak baseload power, then we could reduce localized pollution, use less foreign oil, improve our trade deficit, and maybe even create some "green" jobs.

Though, frankly, if we could just convince more people to drive Civics and Corollas...

 

[NW-Bound]

Well, I'm opposed to lawyer science, as I call it, but let's consider...

IF, and that's a big IF, we have an EV that costs quite a bit less than $40k, and IF we are talking about an urban area with lots of congestion and pollution, and IF we can generate electricity relatively cleanly utitlizing non-peak baseload power, then we could reduce localized pollution, use less foreign oil, improve our trade deficit, and maybe even create some "green" jobs.

Though, frankly, if we could just convince more people to drive Civics and Corollas...

EV or Civics or Corollas, most people do not care as long as their neighbors buy one. That would leave more gas for their own muscle cars.

 

[samclem]

When considering the Chevy Volt, it's important to go beyond the "physical" engineering. Chevy obviously went deeper than the usual pool of engineers to bring in their budget folks, marketing staff, political consultants, etc for a more "holistic" engineering approach. The Volt is going to successfully achieve it's goal (portray GM/Chevy as a caring, green company to the public at large and to it's major stockholder, and help it's major stockholder claim a green victory). The team has successfully surveyed the political environment (appearing green is good, even if the truth is different) and the fiscal environment ("the numbers don't need to add up--add $7500 to everything. Even if the whole thing fails miserably, we now know where we can get more money. And, no matter how bad it gets, we won't cancel it. That's where we went wrong with the EV1. When the "incentive money" stops, we'll "reluctantly" kill the program and the EV fans will blame the government.)

 

[ERD50]

I can guarantee you no (sober) engineer ever came up with the idea of a purely battery powered EV. These ideas come out of the minds of tree-hunging, green environmentalists. The idea gets popular because other untrained, non-scientific type people thinks it makes sense.

Well, I'm opposed to lawyer science, as I call it, but let's consider...

IF, and that's a big IF, we have an EV that costs quite a bit less than $40k, and IF we are talking about an urban area with lots of congestion and pollution, and IF we can generate electricity relatively cleanly utitlizing non-peak baseload power, then we could reduce localized pollution, use less foreign oil, improve our trade deficit, and maybe even create some "green" jobs.

Though, frankly, if we could just convince more people to drive Civics and Corollas...

Yes, and when some combination of those IFs can be assembled into a reasonably cost competitive vehicle/system, engineers would have already been anticipating it and have designs ready.

But in the mean time, we spend more money to get less, and the pollution reductions are modest, maybe even non-existent (I don't really know if or how much extra pollution is created to make those batteries, relative to any gains). That just sucks up money, it doesn't produce real jobs any more that paying someone to move a pile of dirt back and forth each day would create a job.

And yes, I agree that we could gain far more right now with conservation measures - though I sure would not limit that to the "mpg" rating on a vehicle. We need to look much bigger picture - reduce person-miles driven through an array of measures. Many people discovered lots of ways to conserve without any govt help at all when we had $4.00 gasoline. If a "painful" price was a long term certainty, people could also adopt long term solutions. I can guarantee that would be more effective than a few specific selections made by a few people in DC.

I think what is happening is that conservation is not 'sexy-green', but a EV falsely labeled "zero pollution" is seen and promoted as 'sexy-green'.

-ERD50

 

[HFWR]

EVs are more suited for reducing localized pollution, such as here in DFW, where level orange is the standard...

Total pollution, maybe not so much.

 

[Sam]

Though, frankly, if we could just convince more people to drive Civics and Corollas...

I'm with you. Simple solutions are usually the best ones.

I'm against subsidies, but if subsidies must exist, then let's subsidize any vehicle that can transport 4 adults and achieves over 35mpg combined. The higher the fuel efficiency, the better the subsidy. Imagine something like: $3,000 for 35mpg, $4,000 for 40mpg, $5,000 45mpg. Now that will make an impact that no hybrid nor EV can ever dream of.

But we (the government) need to continue to spend large sum of money for a better future. Not to subsidize the current idiotic hybrid/EV program, but to finance research in battery, may be with the goal of doubling the energy density in 5 years and quadrupling it in 10 years. Then and only then EV would become a viable alternative at a reasonable cost.

The government should also immediately start a new mandatory requirement on Drag Coefficient (Cd) for all passenger cars to be sold. Using the Cd of the current Prius as the minimum requirement, and tighten it as the years progress, may be 10% every 5 years.

 

[samclem]

But we (the government) need to continue to spend large sum of money for a better future. Not to subsidize the current idiotic hybrid/EV program, but to finance research in battery, may be with the goal of doubling the energy density in 5 years and quadrupling it in 10 years. Then and only then EV would become a viable alternative at a reasonable cost.

But why? Why should government decide that chemical batteries reversibly storing electric energy is the very best road ahead? There are lots of ways to skin this cat, let the engineers and folks trying to make money figure it out.
Batteries with high energy densities are possible already. Nano lithium batteries, etc have higher energy densities than presently fielded commercial batteries, and they cost a lot more. If we're counting on a government R&D program to decrease the prices for batteries, I think we're using the wrong tool for the problem.

The government should also immediately start a new mandatory requirement on Drag Coefficient (Cd) for all passenger cars to be sold. Using the Cd of the current Prius as the minimum requirement, and tighten it as the years progress, may be 10% every 5 years.

It might be better to address the problem directly (goal: decreased fuel use) rather than direct an approach ("better Cd"). For example, aerodynamic drag is not a major factor in fuel use for vehicles employed in low-speed stop and go driving. Even for vehicles going faster for longer periods, drag reduction comes at a price. Making a vehicle very "slippery" may cause it to have a less practical shape, and also may require it to be heavier, decreasing mileage in town. Building a more aerodynamic car might result in a car that burns more fuel.

Every long-haul truck could be made much more aerodynamically efficient if it had a fairing on the back to smooth the airflow at the back of the trailer (the shape of the back of a vehicle is sometimes more important than the front in reducing drag, and an abrupt flat plate at the back is a very "draggy" shape). Trucking companies would LOVE to improve the fuel efficiency of their fleet by 2%. I can only guess that companies don't mount fairings to the back of trucks because it is not practical. Maybe if fuel prices go up, it will become practical. I have noticed more trucks with fairings underneath the trailers (running lengthwise) to decrease turbulence and drag. Apparently this is now a practical approach.

Less regs and direction, more market-based solutions. If necessary, use the market to get the desired result. A modern sedan with three people in it is more fuel efficient than an $80,000 super-EV with one "green-conscious" driver. When fuel prices are high enough, people will again modify their behavior and manufacturers will produce the vehicles they want.

 

[Nords]

Trucking companies would LOVE to improve the fuel efficiency of their fleet by 2%.

That's what railroads are for!

 

[samclem]

That's what railroads are for!

If those truck drivers would just go NASCAR and get in really close to each other for some drafting, they'd approach the aerodynamic efficiency of a train. Then we'd have to work on rolling resistance in these big-rig highway-trains--I think steel wheels would work great in this regard if those safety monsters at the NHTSA would just loosen up a little regarding stopping distances. Finally, we'd need to reduce the inefficiencies from having all those engines running--a single engine running at higher output is more efficient. For this, I propose that all the trucks simply mechanically link up while underway and have the lead truck pull them (lead truck gets reimbursed for fuel and maintenance electronically via automatic credit to his account from trucks in the train). When the "train" slows down due to hills, the rigs in the back can contribute some joules.

All patent pending . . .

 

[Nords]

All patent pending . . .

My daughter had never seen a triple-trailer truck rig until she went on a Mainland school trip. It freaked out the entire group, and I'm including the adult chaperones in that description.

 

[Sam]

But why? Why should government decide that chemical batteries reversibly storing electric energy is the very best road ahead? There are lots of ways to skin this cat, let the engineers and folks trying to make money figure it out.
Batteries with high energy densities are possible already. Nano lithium batteries, etc have higher energy densities than presently fielded commercial batteries, and they cost a lot more. If we're counting on a government R&D program to decrease the prices for batteries, I think we're using the wrong tool for the problem.

The first oil crisis happened in the early 70s, almost 40 years ago. The "engineers and folks trying to make money" still haven't figure out a way yet.

I agree that there are more than one way to skin a cat. But for this particular cat, the choices are very limited. Public transportation does not work, car pooling does not work, small/efficient cars does not work, bike lanes does not work, concentrated living does not work, etc... This is the USA: We are in love with our cars, we don't want to live in small, cramped apartments (unless financially forced to). We are brainwashed to avoid diesel in spite of its higher energy density. We talk about living green but we don't practice it.

No, Electric Vehicle (EV) is not the only solution to the problem but it's definitely the most promising one in the foreseeable future. Its main problems are battery cost, weight and longevity. Those problems are just too enormous/costly for a private company to solve. That's why I suggest the government involvement. And research in battery does not just benefit the EV. Laptops, cell phones, GPSs, tools, cameras and countless other electronic devices will benefit greatly with a better battery.

 

[Nords]

That's why I suggest the government involvement. And research in battery does not just benefit the EV. Laptops, cell phones, GPSs, tools, cameras and countless other electronic devices will benefit greatly with a better battery.

The Navy's submarine force has been using lead-acid batteries since Nimitz was an ensign. They're a lot less explosive today than they were a century ago, and the technology has been extended to its absolute limits, but they're still lead-acid batteries.

I suspect that if govt research was the easy answer then we'd have been making the same advances in battery tech that have been made in submarine propulsion, acoustic quieting, sensor sensitivity, and other areas. Heck, we even figured out how to get rid of the periscope's hull penetration.

Or maybe govt research is the answer and it's just not there yet.

I think one motivational aspect of a high-density battery will be $250/barrel oil...

 

[ERD50]

The first oil crisis happened in the early 70s, almost 40 years ago. The "engineers and folks trying to make money" still haven't figure out a way yet.

I don't think you can come to that conclusion. There are just physical limits to what can be done and still provide a safe, comfortable, affordable vehicle that uses far less oil than cars did 40 years ago. ICs have their limits (Carnot Cycle), and it isn't that we have not "figured out" how to make an EV - the economics just don't make sense.

As a parallel, think back to when some really big flat screen TVs were demonstrated as an example of what could be done. The engineers "figured it out", but they didn't go into production with those units because they would have cost far more than the market could bear. That is where we are with EVs, and as we have discussed before, batteries simply can not be expected to be on the same price/performance reduction curve as pure electronics. Those chemicals have physical limits.

Public transportation does not work, car pooling does not work, small/efficient cars does not work, bike lanes does not work, concentrated living does not work, etc...

I don't think we've exhausted the possibilities. On the contrary, we've barely tapped them.

Didn't we see a several % reduction in gasoline usage when we hit $4? And yet, no big infrastructure changes happened at all, and there was no time for long term solutions to take hold. Now imagine if we all were told that gas would be that high and continually rising forever - people would make long term changes that would result in even more reductions. Not too many people are going to move closer to work immediately when gas prices jump, but over time it will be a higher priority in the job/home decision. So over time, commutes will go down, more people will request some tele-commuting days, etc. That and a million other things that just happen because people take action.

We are brainwashed to avoid diesel in spite of its higher energy density. We talk about living green but we don't practice it.

I don't have the facts/figures handy, and no time to look them up right now (maybe someone else can post them), but IIRC, the higher usage of diesel in Europe is because they had lower pollution standards than the US. So who's being 'green'?

No, Electric Vehicle (EV) is not the only solution to the problem but it's definitely the most promising one in the foreseeable future. Its main problems are battery cost, weight and longevity.

Those are big problems. And who is to say that batteries are the best solution, maybe there are alternatives. As samclem has mentioned, if we let the govt fund one area, maybe the real solution dies on the vine as it can't get support. I could give real world examples of exactly that scenario in other alternative energy areas - govt involvement stifled innovation. The guy took his technology (and jobs) to Europe - DOH!

Those problems are just too enormous/costly for a private company to solve. That's why I suggest the government involvement. And research in battery does not just benefit the EV. Laptops, cell phones, GPSs, tools, cameras and countless other electronic devices will benefit greatly with a better battery.

I would completely turn that statement around 180 degrees.

It is EVs that benefit from the pursuit of better batteries for "Laptops, cell phones, GPSs, tools, cameras and countless other electronic devices". There is already a very high amount of private investment pushing better batteries for these products. Just look at how much batteries have improved over the past 15 years. Would government involvement help that?

Think back to how so many new technologies went from expensive, large, rare, and finicky to cheap, common, small, and reliable. They (mostly) didn't get subsidies or get "pushed" into the market. At first, the expensive, large, rare, and finicky product fit a niche for someone - it made economic sense, even at that high price. Example: a solar panel and battery might make economic sense if it would be very expensive to run power to that spot. So the product fills that niche, without subsidies. Later, as further development makes the product better, there are additional niches where the product makes sense, and that keeps going until everyone has one. But not before - the subsidy would just mean we collectively pay for something that doesn't meet our needs. Bad decision.

It isn't just demand that drives product improvements. It is advancing technology that makes for improved products that creates bigger markets and that creates the demand. I don't think you can do that "artificially" (subsidies), it has to happen as technology advances, and a lot of that is just a progression that takes time and experience. There was demand for $40 VCRs when they cost $1800. But no one could make a $40 VCR until the various technologies that all work together progressed. Silicon circuits didn't just jump to their current state - they HAD to go step-wise, generation by generation to make improvements, learn how to bring yields up, and then try the next thing. No amount of money can bypass that process, and it takes time. Since there is already plenty of incentive for better batteries, more money thrown at it just isn't going to make a significant change, no matter how much you "wish" it were so.

-ERD50

 

[Sam]

I suspect that if govt research was the easy answer then we'd have been making the same advances in battery tech that have been made in submarine propulsion, acoustic quieting, sensor sensitivity, and other areas. Heck, we even figured out how to get rid of the periscope's hull penetration.

For sure it's not easy, or cheap. And as with all researches, there's no guarantee. We might get there or we might not.

What's the harm of putting together a bunch of super scientists (with no agenda) together and let them find a way. May be we'll get lucky and get the same speedy result as the Mahattan Project (from the scientific point of view only.)

It will cost a lot of money, and hopefully for the right reason. Certainly can't be worse than the recent "gas guzzler buy back" program or the current hybrid/EV subsidy.

 

[ERD50]

What's the harm of putting together a bunch of super scientists (with no agenda) together and let them find a way.

The private sector is already doing it. Why bother with having the Govt do it? And I'm quite certain that batteries are important to the military, so I bet we are already funding this research - in fact I know it.

It will cost a lot of money, and hopefully for the right reason. Certainly can't be worse than the recent "gas guzzler buy back" program or the current hybrid/EV subsidy.

If we are actually going to accomplish anything at all, we need to set a far higher standard than "not worse than Cash for Clunkers"

A little back-of-the envelope perspective on conservation versus EV use:

Let's say Joe Commuter talks to his boss about telecommuting just one day a month. Let's also say that Joe and Joan decide they could carpool just one day out of every two weeks. Those are pretty modest changes, no big sacrifice, no new technology required. Yet, out of a 20 day work-month, that would be a 10% immediate reduction in fuel for commuting (I gave half-credit to carpooling to the other party). Not everyone can do that, some jobs require physical presence, but surely many could do much more with the proper incentives. Let's say on average that we achieved this modest level for half the commuters - an overall 5% reduction in fuel use.

If we use a round figure that an EV still consumes about half as much fuel (to generate, transmit and charge the batteries) as a conventional vehicle that a an energy-conscious person would buy, that means to accomplish that same 5% reduction, we would need to have 10% of the commuting fleet be EVs.

Now, which is easier, which can be accomplished faster and cheaper? If we really want to reduce "something" (is it energy use, fossil fuel, CO2, destruction from mining, ...?), we need to define what it is and then find the best solutions. Picking one and crowning it King/Queen is not going to get us there.

Considering how much of our electricity comes from coal, I'd suggest you compare the ecological damage of coal mining (habitat destruction, leveling of whole hillsides, erosion, hazardous run-off) and burning (sulfur and acid rain, mercury pollution, particulates and radioactive emissions and remember, no catalytic converters on coal plants) to the relatively benign process of drilling for oil (drill a hole, pump out the oil, cover the hole - done) and burning ti in our low emission vehicles (catalytic converters, fuel injection, sensors, computer controls). Sure, a few oil wells have had major leaks, but how does that compare to the damage done every minute of every day mining for coal? That is too routine to make the news.

Considering all that - do EVs really get us where we want to be (wherever that is - I don't think it's been defined - that is part of the problem)? I'm not sure we should invest a penny in pursuing EVS - they will make sense when they make sense, why "push" it?

-ERD50

 

[Sam]

The private sector is already doing it. Why bother with having the Govt do it?
-ERD50

Because the private sector's end result is not satisfactory yet. For myself, I still want a laptop that can run twice as long on battery without weight or cost increases.

Let's say Joe Commuter talks to his boss about telecommuting just one day a month. Let's also say that Joe and Joan decide they could carpool just one day out of every two weeks. Those are pretty modest changes, no big sacrifice, no new technology required.
-ERD50

Yes those are modest changes. Unfortunately Joe Commuter is not on board.

Considering how much of our electricity comes from coal,
-ERD50

NO! No coal, no oil. Hopefully all additional electricity to sustain EVs will come from NUCLEAR plants. Wind and solar too, but only when they become competitive, price wise (and excluding government's subsidies)

 

[ERD50]

RE: The private sector is already doing it. Why bother with having the Govt do it?

Because the private sector's end result is not satisfactory yet. For myself, I still want a laptop that can run twice as long on battery without weight or cost increases.

What makes you think the Govt could achieve this faster than what private industry is doing (and they have made a lot of progress, batteries are far better than just 10 years ago)? You use a foregone conclusion as justification.



RE: Let's say Joe Commuter...

Yes those are modest changes. Unfortunately Joe Commuter is not on board.

OK, so Joe commuter doesn't care. So why should the Govt throw subsidies and other $ (Joe's dollars) at a problem that Joe Commuter doesn't care about?

Joe Commuter "cared" and took action when gas was $4. He probably did more and did it more quickly than any govt sponsored gasoline conservation program.

NO! No coal, no oil. Hopefully all additional electricity to sustain EVs will come from NUCLEAR plants. Wind and solar too, but only when they become competitive, price wise (and excluding government's subsidies)

OK, nuclear probably makes a lot of sense for our electricity going forward, and wind and solar could play a part. But if we don't include that in the equation (the $7,500 subsidy does not), it isn't much of a "solution". How many Megawatts worth of coal plants have been given permits in the past 3 years? How many Megawatts worth of NUCLEAR plants have been given permits in the past 3 years (versus old plants being de-commissioned)? I don't know but I'd guess we are not making much progress in that area.

-ERD50

 

[Sam]

So what's your solution?

 

[Hobo]

Here's my opinion of what is going to (or should happen). Battery research has run its course.. and all we got for it is very low capacity to store electricity for high cost, not to mention the difficulty in getting rid of them.

What is our most abundant power sources in the US? Nuclear, natural gas, and coal. Clean coal technology has run its course. Nukes may work in submarines, but not in cars. Natural gas has had limited research. It is used as a substitute for gasoline in internal combustion engines.

Serious fuel cell research has barely begun. Recently it is beginning to show some real promise. Here is a recent article http://www.plugpower.com/technology/fuelcelloverview.aspx.

This gem is for residential use and uses hydrogen extracted from natural gas to produce heat and electricity. Natural gas can be used to produce hydrogen, with one common method being the hydrogen reformer. Though not directly applicable to cars, this article shows that product development on fuel cells is making progress, where as most other technologies are standing still. New membranes, new heat tolerance, increased efficiency is being accomplished. Waste heat can be use to drive a heat pump or used to simply to heat the car.

Now look at the cost per kWh. Natural gas is competitive with oil. Taken from Oil versus Gas fuel for your Heating needs Admittedly old data, but a useful comparison none the less.

Price kWh content $/kWh Efficiency $/kWh
Oil $2.000 per Gallon / 40.1734104 = $0.050 / 80% = $0.0622
Nat. Gas $1.500 per Therm / 28.9017341 = $0.052 / 80% = $0.0649
Propane $2.000 per Gallon / 26.300578 = $0.076 / 80% = $0.0951
Electricity $0.150 per kWh / 1 = $0.150 / 100% = $0.1500

My point in this discussion is that the we do not yet know that best solution for making our cars more efficient and cost effective. I will suggest that fuel cell technology using natural gas as a fuel has lots of potential for developing increased efficiency in the future.

This may not be the final technological answer - something new could easily be discovered. However, one fact stands out.

If the government needs to get involved, keep to efficiency standards. Instead of fuel efficiency standards, it is probably better to focus on cost efficiency standard - just to allow for the greatest possible flexibility in promoting innovation.

Government cannot get into the business of picking winners and loosers by encouraging one technology over another. If our goal is to get cars off our dependence on foreign oil, then, lets make that a separate standard. Each year a car maker's fleet must consume less and less oil (or a penalty will apply). But let capitalism figure out how they can meet these goals. It just may be that large cars with low gas mileage will simply be priced right out of the market.

 

[ERD50]

So what's your solution?

The short answer is that I don't need to present a solution to realize that something else is not a viable solution.

But I'll humor you and provide some ideas on "solutions". But first, you need to define the "problem". And one of the biggest problems is that people try to provide solutions w/o defining the problem. So, you first.

-ERD50